TREASURY

Budget ECOFIN: 24 November 2005

Ivan Lewis: I chaired the Economic and Financial Affairs Budget Council (Budget ECOFIN) on 24 November 2005. The Permanent Representative to the European Union, Sir John Grant, represented the UK. The trilateral meeting with the European Parliament and the Commission, designed to reach an agreement on the 2006 EC Budget, was extended until 30 November since it was not possible to reach an agreement on 24 November. This was due to European Parliament not being able to continue negotiations after midnight on 24 November.
	An agreement on the 2006 EC Budget was concluded between the Council and the European Parliament on 30 November. The agreement establishes total payment levels of €111,969 million (1.0100 per cent. of EU GNI), an increase to certain co-decided programmes of €100 million, and a mobilisation of the flexibility instrument of €275 million (of which €40 million is to be spent on CFSP). Agreement was also reached on the other agenda items carried forward from 24 November.
	The Council duly concluded its second reading of the 2006 EC budget as an "A" point at the JHA Council on Thursday 1 December. The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on its own second reading on 15 December in Strasbourg, after which the 2006 EC Budget will be formally adopted.

Response to Globalisation

Gordon Brown: With companies, Governments and individuals all having to respond to the scale, speed and scope of a changing global economic environment, I am today announcing a package of measures to respond to the challenges and opportunities of globalisation.
	I am today publishing a paper, "Globalisation and the UK—strength and opportunity to meet the economic challenge", that sets out Britain's policy response to the key challenges and opportunities of globalisation, in particular in skills, science, regulation, transport, and planning.
	In the 2005 Budget I commissioned Sir George Cox to conduct a review into how best to apply creativity and innovation to improve UK firms' productivity and performance. His report is published today.
	In the same Budget I asked Sir John Pattison to develop a 10-year strategy for UK stem cell research. He has published his report today.
	Taking forward the goals from the 10-year science and innovation investment framework, I am announcing:
	a new partnership with the biomedical industry, as a result of which the industry expects to grow its investment in UK medical R&D by £500 million per year in the near term rising to £1 billion in the longer term—an increase of some 30 per cent. ;
	a new national institute for health research in the NHS, with around 10 major centre grants to support centres of excellence, 250 clinical academic fellowships, 100 clinical lectureship training opportunities a year, and a series of measures to streamline regulatory burdens on the research community; which my colleague, the Secretary of State for Health will build upon when she announces the new research and development strategy for the NHS in January;
	a new commitment to develop the capability within the national NHS IT system to facilitate—within the bounds of patient confidentiality—9i) the recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and (ii) the gathering of data to support groundbreaking work to improve public health;
	in response to Sir John Pattisson's report, an extra £50 million over the next two years to make the UK a world leader in stem cell research, to take forward the recommendations of the UK Stem Cell Initiative (UKSCI) Report. The detailed response to the UKSCI report is available at:
	http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ HealthAndSocialCareTopics/StemCell/fs/en
	a review into the intellectual property framework led by Andrew Gowers and reporting in Autumn 2006. While recognising that the Government believe the present UK system broadly strikes the right balance between consumers and rights' holders, it is important to examine whether improvements could be made;
	publication of the Government's response to discussions with business on the development of the R&D tax credit, including major improvements to the administration of the scheme to ensure that all businesses get the full value from the R&D tax credit; and
	in response to Sir George Cox's report, plans for a network of creativity and innovation centres in every region of the country to nurture emerging talent and build links between businesses and the creative sector.
	Copies of the globalisation paper, the paper on discussions of the R&D tax credit and the reports of Sir George Cox and Sir John Pattison are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

Gulf Veterans' Illnesses

Don Touhig: A key principle of the Government's approach to addressing the health concerns of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict is that there should be appropriate research into veterans' illnesses and factors that may have a bearing on these.
	In their 2003 Review of Research into 1990–91 Gulf veterans' illnesses, the Medical Research Council included the recommendation that information from existing epidemiological and mortality studies should be linked. The Ministry of Defence subsequently commissioned a study led by Professor Macfarlane, of the University of Aberdeen. A paper reporting the results of the study is available on the website of the International Journal of Epidemiology in advance of hard-copy publication. The study examined both the longer-term mortality of Gulf veterans and, for those veterans that participated in the main epidemiological surveys of UK Gulf veterans, whether there was any relationship between self-reported experiences during deployment or illness at the time of survey, and subsequent death. The researchers report that, 13 years after the end of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, there is no difference in the overall mortality of Gulf veterans compared with a similar group that did not deploy. The paper also says that an increase in death associated with certain reported exposures is not statistically significant and that excess illness reported by veterans during health surveys was not related to an increased risk of death.
	A summary of the findings is available on the journal website and via a link on the MOD website at: www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/whats—new.htm.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Local Government Pension Scheme

Phil Woolas: My statement to the House on 13 July made it clear that, taking account of costed assessments of the effect on the Local Government Pension Scheme (the LGPS) of reinstating the rule of 85 with effect from 1 April 2005, the Deputy Prime Minister would come forward with new regulations in the autumn to address the consequences for the scheme in time for the provisions to be in place from April 2006.
	Careful consideration has been given to the representations and specialist actuarial advice received from interested parties involved with the Scheme, and to the helpful discussions involving the key stakeholders within the framework of the LGPS Tripartite Committee. The estimates provided by LGPS administering authorities of the anticipated cost pressures arising from the decision to reinstate the rule of 85 in the scheme with effect from 1 April 2005, have also been taken into account. Draft amending regulations will shortly be circulated for consultation to all LGPS interests in England and Wales and will be laid before Parliament in the New Year once they are finalised.
	The combined scope of the consultation package and the subsequent regulations will secure the on-going solvency of the scheme without any additional calls on central or local government budgets. This meets the Government's intention to secure the continued affordability and long term viability of the scheme, and its acceptability to taxpayers.
	Amending regulations, on which the necessary statutory consultation begins shortly, will directly contribute towards mitigating and managing the costs pressures arising from the decision to reinstate the rule of 85 in respect of pension liabilities accruing on the scheme for the period 1 April 2005 until 30 September 2006. Other amendments, based on the responses received from a previous consultation exercise carried out over the summer, will further extend the existing flexibilities in the LGPS linked to the new tax regime for occupational pension schemes already established by the Finance Act 2004.
	Further scheme amendments are also necessary to implement the terms of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. To give effect to the Directive and compliance with the timetable for associated Government legislation on age discrimination and employment law being introduced by DTI, the effective date for the removal of the rule of 85 from the LGPS will be 1 October 2006. Subject to the outcome of the proposed consultation exercise, it will be necessary to put in place appropriate safeguards, which can be objectively justified, for those LGPS members closest to retirement to take effect from the same date. The statutory consultation will provide a framework for discussion between the local authority employers and the trades unions in particular about the precise terms of these safeguards, and to explore how these may be associated both with the current proposed scheme changes, and others which may be developed in the wider discussion about the future of the scheme.
	Balancing the scope of such safeguards with the opportunity to develop the longer term reform of equality proofed scheme will form an integral part of the discussions and negotiations which the Tripartite Committee stakeholders have already agreed to undertake over the next six months. These will involve local authority employers, trades unions and other scheme interests in a programme of discussion and analysis to modernise and reform the scheme. These discussions will take account of wider pension policy developments, to ensure the LGPS can meet the challenges of a changing and flexible workforce, in and around local government, and deal effectively with the high incidence of part-time employees many of whom are female on lower incomes.
	It is intended to consult widely on a policy discussion paper, about the proposed way forward for the LGPS in the summer of 2006 for analysis and comment. This will allow a subsequent statutory consultation to begin later in the autumn of 2006, leading to new scheme provisions for April 2007 with the ultimate objective of having a new-look LGPS in place for April 2008.
	The continued affordability and viability of the scheme, as well as its acceptability to taxpayers, remains a central theme of the Government's intentions for the LGPS. So too is our commitment towards ensuring the scheme offers an equality proofed pension framework for all its increasingly diverse and part-time workforce. Delivering an effective and affordable balance between the cost of its provision to employers and tax payers on the one hand, and fairness to scheme members on the other, remains a priority, within the overall resource framework of local government and of other employers within the scheme. A flexible and attractive pension scheme for local government and employers associated with it is now required.
	This statement is in effect, the beginning of a series of detailed consultations with all LGPS interests about the future of the scheme. Initially, the affordability of the existing LGPS must be established but, in doing that, it is essential to begin to move forward and begin to discuss and analyse the possible form and content of a new-look LGPS for 2008. All LGPS interests are committed to that intent and objective.

Planning Delivery Grant

Yvette Cooper: In July 2002 my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he would be making an additional £350 million available to local authorities over the period 2003–06 to improve the delivery of planning services. Since then, we have announced that the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) will continue, with a further £255 million being made available in the period to 2008. We have now decided the basis on which we will distribute the Development Control and Enterprise Areas allocations of the Planning Delivery Grant of £135 million in 2006–07 and will be informing recipients of their provisional allocations.
	The grant is performance related. Our aim is to enhance the resourcing of the planning system in a way that drives performance improvement and ensures effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities. It is specifically targeted towards meeting the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Public Service Agreements (PSA) 5 and 6. PSA 5 aims to achieve a better balance between housing availability and demand. PSA 6 requires all authorities to have local development frameworks in place (in accordance with agreed Local Development Schemes) and to meet the Best Value development control targets by 31 March 2007.
	I can confirm today that the development control allocation is £78 million (57.7 per cent. of the total grant), with £71 million going direct to authorities to reward their improvement towards and achievement of Best Value development control targets in the period October 2004 to June 2005. The assessment is based on three quarterly performance figures this year because the announcement of the first allocation of PDG has been brought forward. It is now in line with other announcements of grant and this will help to increase certainty in local authority budget setting processes. This allocation will be paid to local planning authorities at a district and county level, national parks, regional planning bodies, the Broads Authority and the Greater London Authority. A provisional £2.2 million is also being made available to authorities with Enterprise Areas in their boundary.
	This year we have increased the incentive for authorities to meet targets by allocating three quarters of the overall development control allocation for meeting targets and a quarter for performance improvement. In addition authorities that meet all three targets will receive a bonus of £50,000. The awards will be weighted to take account of workload and performance, and the rewards for meeting the major targets, or improving in this area, will be weighted more significantly.
	For the first time there will be a topslice of £7 million from this development control total, which be used to support authorities towards meeting the target. There will be a topslice from this development control total, which be used to support authorities towards meeting the target. We agreed following a review of development control carried out with the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit that up to £5 million would be made available to the Planning Advisory Service and ATLAS, the team supporting authorities dealing with large housing applications in the south east. A topslice of £2 million from this total will be used to reward and incentivise authorities that are proactive in performance management of applications, especially through the use of electronic tracking of applications, and handling of backlogs. I will make a further announcement on what this will entail, early in 2006.
	As in previous years, the development control allocations are subject to an abatement related to performance on appeals. Where an authority's performance on appeal is 40 per cent. worse than the national average (32.63 per cent. of appeals upheld against the authority), 10 per cent. of their development control allocation will be abated. Where this performance is 50 per cent. worse than the average, this abatement will increase to 20 per cent. of the development control allocation. This condition underlines the continuing importance we place on quality in decision making.
	Grant allocations are not ring-fenced and authorities have complete discretion in the way they spend this money. However, to encourage investment for the future, 25 per cent. of the total grant paid to any individual authority must be spent on capital. The remaining 75 per cent. can be spent by the local authority on resource or capital budgets.
	The final condition imposed on authorities ensures that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has the power to act appropriately to partly withhold payment or recover part or all of grant paid where there are concerns over the accuracy or proven inaccuracies in the information on which allocations were made. I may consider withholding up to 10 per cent. of the grant allocated to authorities whose Best Value Performance Indicator 109 (BVPI 109) has been qualified by the auditor until we have established to our satisfaction the reason for the qualification and the reliability of the data on which grant was allocated. Following this I may seek to recover some or all of the monies paid to those authorities.
	Today's announced allocation remains provisional and so remains subject to a final determination of grant which will occur when the second announcement is made.
	The second announcement will cover all other aspects of the grant including rewards for e-planning (£5.7 million), plan-making (£20.8 million), high housing demand and growth areas (£16 million) and low demand pathfinder areas (£2.5 million). It will also include topslices for the Planning Inspectorate (£2 million), Regional Planning Bodies (£6.5 million), the GLA (£100,000) and a national initiative of planning bursaries (£1.32 million). This second announcement is expected to be made in March 2006. All theses figures, along with those for development control and enterprise areas, remain provisional and subject to final determination by Ministers with agreement by Treasury.
	A table showing the provisional amounts payable is available in the Libraries of both Houses. This sets out the details of each recipient's provisional grant allocations for development control and enterprise areas and abatements for poor appeals performance.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Environment Council

Margaret Beckett: I will chair the second Environment Council under the UK presidency on Friday 2 December October in Brussels. The Minister of State for Climate Change and Environment, will also attend, as the UK representative.
	At this Council we will aim to secure partial political agreement on the LIFE+ regulation, the only dedicated community financial instrument for the environment. We cannot reach a final agreement on the overall budget until the wider future financing negotiations are completed, but we want to agree the rest of the text at this meeting, to ensure that we can move as quickly as possible to adopt the Regulation before the current LIFE extension runs out at the end of 2006.
	We will be discussing the Commission's recent Communication on aviation emissions, which supports the integration of aviation into the EU emissions trading scheme. We are seeking Council Conclusions to give the Commission a clear steer from Member States on the best way to tackle the impact on climate change of aviation emissions.
	Council will also be asked to agree Conclusions preparing for the International Conference on Chemicals Management which will be held in Dubai in February 2006, and is scheduled to adopt the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
	Council will debate the Thematic Strategy on Air Quality which sets out the Commission's policy on air pollution up to 2020, and the associated proposal for a new Air Quality Directive. The focus of the discussion will be how the objectives under the Thematic Strategy might be delivered, and the balance in the Directive between new measures to reduce the environmental and health impacts of air pollution, and flexibility for Member States to comply with their obligations.
	Finally, Council will debate next steps on GMOs. There was a short discussion on this issue at the October Environment Council, where we undertook to enable a further debate at the December Council, focussing on member states views of which aspects of policy on GM crops and food merit further in-depth analysis and political discussion, such as the potential risks and benefits of GM technology (including the regulatory regime and the decision-making process for individual GMOs) and the need for further research.
	Under "Any Other Business", points will be raised on: the Biodiversity Strategy; the Nanotechnology Action Plan; Green Public Procurement; the Importation of Wild Birds; Action for the Baltic Marine Environment; and the Clean Clever and Competitive Initiative.

Common Agricultural Policy

Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have today published a paper which contributes to the debate already underway on how to achieve a sustainable future for agriculture.
	We have presented a vision for what a sustainable model of European agriculture might look like in the future to benefit Europe and the rest of the world.
	The paper does not set out a route map for getting there. That must be the subject of inclusive debate across Europe and achieved through a carefully planned process and to a manageable timescale.
	Through the modernised European agriculture policy set out in this paper, we believe we can achieve the following goals:
	Society can contribute less financially to agriculture but reap much greater benefits.
	Consumers can have a secure supply of cheaper, safe, high quality food.
	Developing countries can achieve significant economic growth.
	Farmers in Europe can become more competitive and market focused.
	The rural environment can be improved.
	Rural development can be boosted, particularly in some of the poorest parts of the European Union.
	Copies of the paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

MPs' Briefing Sessions

Jim Knight: On 20 October my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons announced a series of dates for briefing sessions on the work of Government Departments for new Members of Parliament, Official Report, column 63WS.
	DEFRA has arranged two further sessions: Monday 12 December for Rural Affairs issues and Tuesday 10 January 2006 for Environment issues. Due to unforeseen circumstances the original briefing session on 24 January 2006 has had to be postponed. A new date will be announced as soon as possible.
	Hon. Members should contact Deirdre Kennedy, Parliamentary Clerk at DEFRA on 0207 238 5455 to register an interest in attending.

TRANSPORT

Vehicle Register

Stephen Ladyman: I will shortly be launching a review of the provisions (Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulation 2002 (S.I. 2002/2742) which replaced previous similar provisions), under which data is released from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle register. The provisions governing the release of this data have, in effect, been in place and worked effectively for over 40 years. When these provisions were originally introduced they did not envisage the introduction of electronic databases, the large number of vehicles now on the roads, or the range of bodies now requesting access. Concerns have also recently been raised about the breadth of organisations that have access to the register. For these reasons, I will publish a consultation paper early in the New Year which will review the purpose, scope and operation of the release of data from the vehicle register.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Performance Targets

John Hutton: I am pleased to be able to announce today performance targets in respect of the customer-facing businesses of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	In line with the Department's Public Service Agreement we are committed to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our services. In order to demonstrate this, our businesses aim to achieve published unit cost targets.
	The Child Support Agency target was published in its 2005–06 Agency Business Plan. The table below sets out our 2005–06 targets for Jobcentre Plus, the Pension Service and the Disability and Carers Service together with the published targets and actual unit costs for 2004–05.
	
		
			  Definition 2004–05 2004–05 2005–06 
			   Actual £ Target £ Target £ 
		
		
			 Jobcentre Plus Benefitprocessing 28.07 28.18 
			1 31.00 1 28.24 
			  Jobbroking 208.02 191.49 
			1 216.78 1 217.03 
			 The Pension Service Cost percustomer 25.07 24.00 
			2 28.56 2 25.50 
			 Disability and Careers Service Cost percustomercontact 133.17 132.15 131.56 
		
	
	1. Jobcentre Plus revised the methodology of calculation for the 2005–06 target as a result of an allocation process that more accurately identifies the costs for benefit processing and job broking. The 2004–05 target has been recalculated on the same basis to enable comparison with the 2005–06. The increase from restated 2004–05 target to 2005–06 is explained by a small increase in expenditure on Employment Programmes, which is a reflection of the focus during 2005–06 on harder to help clients.
	2. With improvements in management information, and a levelling off in Pension Credit load, the Pension Service decided that the methodology for calculating unit costs should be changed, removing the double counting of customers entitled to both State Pension and Pension Credit. This resulted in a lower average.